This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute over unpaid spousal support. The Petitioner was ordered to pay the Respondent spousal support, but a disagreement arose regarding the calculation of the amount owed. The Petitioner claims to have made two payments in November 2020 totaling $1,515.00, which he argues should have been considered in the calculation of the unpaid amount. The district court adopted a hearing officer's report requiring the Petitioner to pay $1,582.82 in unpaid spousal support (paras 1 and 3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Adopted a hearing officer's report requiring the Petitioner to pay $1,582.82 in unpaid spousal support (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that the district court erroneously calculated the unpaid spousal support amount by failing to account for two payments made in November 2020, totaling $1,515.00 (para 1).
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in calculating the amount of unpaid spousal support by not considering two payments allegedly made by the Petitioner in November 2020.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order requiring the Petitioner to pay $1,582.82 in unpaid spousal support (para 1).
Reasons
Per Ives J. (Attrep C.J. and Wray J. concurring):
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate that the district court erred and to ensure that the necessary record is placed before the appellate court. The Petitioner failed to include the exhibits considered by the district court in the record on appeal, which are crucial for reviewing the factual determinations. The court noted that without these exhibits, it could not adequately review the district court's decision for substantial evidence. Additionally, the Petitioner improperly attached bank statements to his brief, which were not part of the record on appeal. The court presumed the district court's decision was supported by the evidence due to the incomplete record and affirmed the district court's order (paras 2-7).